Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Dan M. Lipschultz, In His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, et al. v. Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 17-2290 · judgment September 7, 2018
Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a state or local-government petitioner, a circuit split argued in the petition, and an Eighth Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.
Questions presented
The Communications Act distinguishes between “telecommunications services” and “information services.” Telecommunications services are subject to common carrier regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), while the FCC has a policy against regulation of information services. The FCC has repeatedly declined to classify Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service as either a telecommunications or an information service. Although VoIP service is a relatively new technology, it already has over 60 million subscribers in this country and is rapidly replacing traditional telephone service. In this case, the Eighth Circuit became the first circuit court to reach the VoIP classification issue. Over a strong dissent, the panel majority classified VoIP service as an information service. The majority concluded that the FCC’s policy against regulating information services conflicts with and preempts state regulation of VoIP service, despite the fact that the FCC has never applied this policy to VoIP. The questions presented are:
-
Whether, in the absence of an FCC decision classifying VoIP service as an information service, FCC policy can conflict with and preempt state regulation of VoIP service.
-
Whether VoIP service is a telecommunications service or an information service, under the appropriate functional test for classification determinations from Brand X.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Elizabeth Catherine Kramer
Office of the Minnesota Attorney General
For respondent
Ian Heath Gershengorn
Jenner & Block
Argument & decision
Decided October 21, 2019.
Proceedings
- Oct 21 2019Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. (Detached Opinion)
- Oct 15 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.
- Oct 09 2019Rescheduled.
- Oct 07 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
- Oct 07 2019Supplemental brief of respondents Charter Advanced Services (MN) LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 03 2019Letter of October 3, 2019 from counsel for petitioners filed. (Distributed)
- Sep 25 2019Rescheduled.
- Jul 17 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
- Jul 12 2019Reply of petitioners Dan M. Lipschultz, et al. filed.
- Jul 03 2019Brief of respondents Charter Advanced Services (MN) LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
- Jun 03 2019Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed.
- May 23 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 3, 2019.
- May 22 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 3, 2019 to July 3, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 01 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2019)
- Mar 01 2019Application (18A889) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until May 3, 2019.
- Feb 22 2019Application (18A889) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 4, 2019 to May 3, 2019, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.